Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 12th, 1990,

The Federal Government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2005 will be investigated by its main advisory body of micro-economic reform.

Treasurer Paul Keating announced on Wednesday[12th] he has referred the plan to the Industry Commission, which must report by September 30 next year.

The inquiry will cover “the costs and benefits for Australian industry of an international consensus in favour of a stabilisation of emissions of greenhouse gases and a reduction in those emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005.”

It will also look at what new opportunities may arise for Australian industry as a result of the reduction, and how Australia could best prepare to respond to the costs and benefits of the plan.

Some scientists believe Australia could become a world leader in environmentally-friendly technology as a result of added research flowing from the government decision.

Anon,1990. Paul Keating refers greenhouse to Industry Commission. Green Week, December 18,p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of the quid pro quo for accepting the Interim Planning Target through Cabinet in October 1990, Keating had managed to extract permission to send the greenhouse issue to one of the pet neo-liberal outposts, the Industry Commission. 

What we learn is that if you want to get anything through a group, there’s always going to be compromises. Some of them consequential, some of them not. It can be hard to tell beforehand. 

What happened next. In September of 1991, the Industry Commission released its report, but basically gave loads of ammunition to the denialists and the delayers saying “nothing to see here shouldn’t take action cheaper not to do anything,” etc, etc. And this was another nail in the climate issue’s coffin. By this time, it was getting harder and harder to sustain interest. There was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process coming to an end, the backwash of the Gulf War, people preparing for Rio. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
United Kingdom

December 11, 1969 – Harold Wilson says “let’s have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1969,

On 11 December 1969, the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, announced in the House of Commons that the Queen had agreed to the appointment of a new, standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution….. In his statement, Wilson also announced the formation of a new Central Scientific Unit on Pollution, intended to coordinate action within government;3 the role of the Unit was seen as distinct from that of the Royal Commission, with the latter providing ‘that outside focus of inquiry and information, and that outside stimulus to government’ for which a need was urgently felt.(Owens, 2012: 2)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was for the previous couple of years – especially since the Torrey Canyon in March of ‘67 – the issue of pollution of air, water, etc. was becoming more and more politically salient. In 1968, one of Wilson’s Secretaries of State had proposed a new department, In ‘69 Wilson had given a speech at the Labour Party conference. So no-one was surprised that he stood there in the House of Commons, and said that he was setting up a standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 

In the US the National Environmental Protection Act, pushed by Scoop Jackson, Democrat from Washington State, had been passed so not doing anything in the UK would have been standing still. 

What we learn is that by the late 60s, the issue of the environment had pushed its way to the near the top of the political agenda. 

What happened next. Wilson gave a speech proclaiming that he wanted a new special relationship based on care for the environment and then Wilson got it in the neck in Parliament and from the Conservative Christopher Chataway. Wilson also produced the first ever Environment White Paper was released the following May and it had a glancing mention of carbon dioxide buildup. The first RCEP report chaired by Eric Ashby had a slightly longer but still fundamentally glancing, mention of carbon dioxide buildup. That was published in 1971. 

The RCEP kept producing useful work. In the year 2000, its report Energy: The Changing Climate was crucial in changing the mood music among the British political elite, calling for a 60% reduction by 2050. And then, of course David Cameron, that vandal, abolished the RCEP as part of the bonfire of the quangos. All that expertise, all that credibility, because he didn’t want independent watchdogs, doing the proper joined-up thinking. Anyway, here we are. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Categories
Australia Denial

 December 10, 1991 – denialist hosted by the “Tasman Institute”

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1991,

10 December 1991 Professor Robert Balling “Global Warming: The Facts behind the Heat” Tasman Institute seminar.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

denialists douchebag, carefully might still be alive at a think tank that was explicitly created to combat greenhouse issues. 

The context was that the Rio Earth Summit was coming up in June of 1992. And therefore, the spreading of bullshit lies and doubt among concerned political elites. And of course, the Tasman Institute gives these people a place to congregate, and they can then exchange notes and feel like they matter.

What we learn is that it matters to create doubt and confusion among elites. And it takes money.

What happened next, the denial-spewing of the Tasman Institute was important during the carbon tax battle of 1994-95, or noisy if not necessarily important; it was at least busy setting up rapid rebuttals of what was being proposed. The Tasman Institute was abandoned in 1997, because it was no longer needed, frankly.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 9th, 2004, Real Climate is launched..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that denial of climate change and spurious science to back it up was still a major thing. And this was before social media, before it was very easy for scientists to explain what they were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and so forth. Real Climate was a real boon to a lot of people who wanted to keep up with what was going on, and to refute the latest denialist talking points.

What we learn is that good scientists have been willing to spend precious time explaining the facts and the theories and the observations and where the facts, theories and observations might not necessarily mesh. And this has, perhaps over time, reduced the confusion. in some people’s minds, maybe. Of course, the simple fact is that a lot of people are choosing not to understand, because if they did understand, it would be pretty bad for their egos and their worldviews. Ignorance is bliss. Alethophobia is a thing. 

What happened next Real Climate still going 20 years later. It’s a solid performance and a solid achievement. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Categories
Austria Energy

December 8, 1976 – IIASA holds a workshop on climate and solar energy conversion

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1976,

IASA workshop on climate and solar energy conversion. Report released in 1977.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IIASA was a new outfit and needed to get hold of some issues that nobody else was really talking about, and to play to its strengths across the Iron Curtain. Climate was a good choice. They ran with it.

This is also in the context of Kissinger making his speech to the United Nations General Assembly and National Academy of Sciences pushing their Energy and Climate report and so forth. And the meeting in the UEA Climatic Research Unit in 75 that had said “yeah, it’s gonna get warmer.” I mean serious people were not doubting this at this point.

What we learn is that smart people have been thinking about it for a long time.

What happened next? The issue could have broken through in the late 1970s, but it would actually be 1988 before things got real.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

December 7, 2011 – a CCS network is launched

Thirteen years ago, on this day, December 7th, 2011, one of those technology advocacy network coalitions got going….

Environmental Organizations Announce CCS Network: Groups Support Carbon Capture and Sequestration as a Critical Climate Change Technology

(USA) December 7, 2011 – Today nine of the world’s leading environmental advocacy organizations launch the ENGO Network on CCS (Environmental NGO Network on Carbon Capture and Sequestration), formed to jointly pursue domestic and international policies and regulations enabling CCS to deliver on its emissions reduction potential safely and effectively. http://www.precaution.org/lib/catf_press_release_engo_ccs_network.111207.pdf [DEAD LINK]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS was in trouble – FutureGen was not working, the Australian efforts were coming to naught, the UK first competition was flailing, the European Union stuff not going well. What to do? Click your heels more vigorously and double-down on your public protestations of faith…

What I think we can learn from this: To really understand why stuff gets launched, you have to know what was happening at the time.

What happened next. People are still proclaiming their faith in CCS.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

Categories
United Kingdom

December 7, 1967: Towards Tomorrow “Assault on Life”

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, December 7th, 1967,

Speaking of a programme that was broadcast on 7th December 1967, Roy Battersby wrote in his memoir. 

 I went back to do some more documentaries for him in a series called Towards Tomorrow. The first, the subtly-titled Assault on Life, about biological research into cloning, fertilization in vitro, sperm banks, genetic engineering etc. created a lot of discussion. It began with commentary over a shot of a foetus in utero:

“If he asks why polluted air for his first breath, why the rivers are dying, the animals disappearing, the ice caps in danger of melting, if he asks about war and the countless millions killed this century, what shall we tell him: That we have the secret of life?”

The support of Professor Waddington and Sir Alex Haddow and Barry Commoner was of great importance in the specially televised public debate that followed, and in keeping the BBC’s nerve.

(Battersby, 2014: 19)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322 ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roy Battersby had already made one film mentioning carbon dioxide buildup – that was Challenge, which had been released at the beginning of 1967. This was the first in a new series called Towards Tomorrow, which ran for two seasons and caused a bit of a stir.

What we learn is that the questioning of technoscience will get you labelled as a troublemaker/hysterical luddite/whatever, because the arguments for unbridled technological development are actually quite thin and rather than address those they’ll go ad hominem on you. 

What happened next Battersby we made another film for Towards Tomorrow. But his third film Hit Suddenly Hit was well there’s no other word for it suppressed. Meanwhile all the things he warned about in his films has potential problems pretty much come to pass and here we go 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

Categories
France

December 6, 2018 – Macron scraps a fuel tax because of protests

On this day six years ago...

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 409ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Gilets Jaunes had been protesting about the petrol tax that Macron had unilaterally installed. He was forced eventually to back down. 

What we learn is that there will be understandable pushback against taxes that make life even harder for poor people who are dependent upon private modes of transport who are living hand to mouth and if you want to have a decent climate policy, carbon policy, it has to be socially publicly acceptable and ultimately, the rich are going to have to cough up but that will never happen because the rich control climate policy. We are doomed. 

Poor people are being fucked. If the rich had taken the “correct” actions in the 1980s and 90s, this might not have needed to happen, but that’s a fantasy. It was always going to play out like this. What can I tell you? 

What happened next Macron is still in charge. But the next president will probably be Marine LePen. Fun and games we will have. 

December 6, 2005 – CCS is our only hope, says Chief Scientist….

December 6, 2006- Turns out 0.1% of a Very BIG NUMBER is … quite a lot…

Categories
Activism Interviews

Interview: BirthStrike’s Spencer Rocchi answers some questions

BirthStrike is “Birthstrike is choosing to forgo having children to protect them from worsening social, economic and environmental conditions.” Here’s their answers to some questions..

a) What was the genesis (!) for the birth of Birth Strike? Was it a gradual realisation or a bolt from the blue?

The BirthStrike movement was founded in 2018 by Blythe Pepino, a British musician and activist, in response to the climate crisis and its goal was to raise awareness of the climate crisis and demand political action.

In 2020, BirthStrike for Climate disbanded and became a support group on Slack called “Grieving Parenthood in the Climate Crisis: Channeling Loss into Climate Justice.” They were not connected to antinatalism (we are), nor did they try to persuade people not to have children (we are).It was a brief movement that I have splintered off into a full-on Revolutionary strategy.

b) What sort of pushback have you had that you respect? (Life is too short for giving oxygen to idiots)

I don’t respect pronatalists, educated breeders and capitalists in general, though it was interesting to watch Blythe Pepino make Tucker Carleson sweat.

It’s not ethical to bring children into climate change, period. If there is a good argument for having children, especially under current conditions, I haven’t heard it.

c) What do you say to people who say “but my child might well be the one to come up with “The Solution?”

“Why didn’t you come up with a solution? What kind of loser forces children into existence to solve humanity’s problems instead of taking personal accountability for themself? You’re too narcissistic to adopt but too lazy to do anything with your own life, so you create another wage slave? Shame on you!”

d) What does “success” look like for BSM?

A mass movement where workers are intentionally withholding procreation to

a) protect their children from climate change,

b) reduce their CO2 output,

c) refuse to feed the capitalist machine,

d) become ungovernable so we can eat the rich.

e) How can people who want to support it get involved/support it?

Join the website mailing list or the FB group. Confront and argue with educated breeders about their narcissistic decision and poor parenting in general.

f) Anything else you’d like to say.

Go vegan!

See also Guardian article from 2019 – BirthStrikers: meet the women who refuse to have children until climate change ends

And again, this is quite funny


Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

December 5, 1994 – Taxing times for Australia, maybe…

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 5th, 1994, Keating’s government was supposed to discuss a carbon tax (but it got bumped).

“Conservation groups yesterday stepped up pressure on the Federal Government to adopt tougher measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Cabinet will consider the issue tomorrow.

In Yallourn, Greenpeace activists chained themselves across railway tracks used by coal trains which feed the Yallourn W power station.

They also unfurled a huge banner down the side of one of the station’s smoke stacks.

 Birnbauer, B. 1994. Greenies Mount Campaign For Greenhouse Tax. The Age, 6 December, p.3.

AND 

LOCAL coal prices would double and the $8 billion export coal industry would be rendered unprofitable if Federal Cabinet introduced a new carbon levy to help reduce greenhouse gas, according to a major study released yesterday.“… But the Australian Conservation Foundation also released a new report yesterday (5 December), prepared for the ACF as a submission to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

“On both a per capita basis and in terms of emissions per unit of GDP, Australia now has by far the highest level of all greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised world,” said ACF executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell”.

1994 Dwyer, M. 1994. Coal fire on carbon levy. The Australian Financial Review, 6 December, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been launching court cases to try to stop coal-fired power stations. They’ve not been successful, sadly, no fault of their own. And also there was a carbon tax proposed by Labor Environment Minister John Faulkner (with the campaign to get this happening spear-headed by ACF). So this protest can be seen as two birds one stone sort of.

[It’d be fun to get hold of Greenpeace newsletters magazines from 1994 to ‘95. See what they had to say.]

What we learn is that nonviolent direct action against coal-fired power stations has been going on for a long time. Sadly without much success. 

What happened next? Australia kept building coal-fired power stations. The carbon tax was defeated and the emissions kept climbing. We are all going to die. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 5, 1952 & 2009 London sees climatic pollution events

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…